Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 546 posts

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#441

Post by 52-6F-62 »

sizzle wrote: post #395
52-6F-62 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally like the idea— it's probably a sign of maturity. I'd add that it would be nice to be able to operate outside of certain fields and certain types of operations without that level of certification. For instance, freelance web devs, small business software employees, etc who aren't dealing in things like personal or trivial data could continue operation. For example: you don't need to be a doctor to be certi…

I agree, what do you think about some enforceable "do good" prior consent laws, in the same vein as scientists trying to do research on humans and requiring prior consent, where if you are caught being unethical towards the people on the other end of your work product, then there will be sanctions and steep penalties equal to how severe the work is judged against harming human rights etc. How do you modify the above…

> Why not have some sort of certification process you can do while working that holds the individual accounts to the values of being unethical and will have consequences for not adhering to, at all levels like on the scale of GDPR violations.

Oh with regard to this one, I don't think my wording was clear. I meant with regard to testing or challenging to be certified without having a formal CS/related background. As: a doctor would have to have an MD to practice as a doctor amongst other certifications— I was contending that an explicit CS degree may not be an optimal equal designation for practicing software engineering/research, as it were. As a background— there are many talented and influential researchers who would be cut out of practicing if the line were drawn at a reputed CS degree. Aligning "software practice" (for lack of better wording) hard with a CS degree might be poor bounds for the field.

But I definitely think I agree, at least on a high level with what you're proposing. I hadn't considered it. Good things have come out of research using the large amounts of data available, so it should continue. But there definitely should be some sort of bounds and method for accountability. Also would include a special permissions and appeal process. There's I'm sure a lot of cost/benefit judgement as there is in many scientific experiments (there's seemingly a great deal of that in biological testing).

And you also might restrict certain entities from performing the research and instead be compensated for their collected data by a reputable research group. Said group can produce the hard/applied research, patents, and license them to groups to use them.

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#442

Post by blihp »

ken wrote: post #425
blihp wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That won't help even a little bit in this case. That's like trying place the responsibility to reduce the amount of garbage generated on those who drive the garbage trucks. The decision to engage in the bad behavior usually doesn't come from IT staff or engineers, it comes from management. Hold the leaders of these organizations responsible and you'll see the problem fixed real quick.

Why not? The decision first comes from management, but engineers are the ones who implement it. I think things would change pretty quick if engineers responded to such requests with "I can't do that, because my professional association would remove me from their membership, which would revoke my license to write software in this country at all". That's how (AIUI) law, medicine, (real) engineering, etc., work today.

Unless you've got a legal/regulatory structure to enforce it, it can't work. And there is absolutely no will on the part of corporations or Congress to do such a thing as it runs contrary to their interests. Even if it were feasible, software development is one of the easiest things to jurisdiction shop since it can be done anywhere. So unless you further mandate where the development must be done, it still won't work.

Keep in mind that most law/medicine/engineering work has some local component anchoring it to local laws. (i.e. currently, someone typically needs to be 'boots on the ground' in the jurisdiction to provide the service) Software doesn't have that.

(edit: obviously, this is a U.S.-specific view of the situation. Other countries may not have the same issues)

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#443

Post by bitcurious »

maxxxxx wrote: post #340
robocat wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each of your complaints is because of a well-designed compromise (app quality/safety; preventing abrupt phone shutdown; removing a common failure point). You may disagree with the compromises, sure. PS: I own zero Apple devices (partly because of the reasons you have, not for the way you are misrepresenting those reasons).

" Each of your complaints is because of a well-designed compromise (app quality/safety; preventing abrupt phone shutdown; removing a common failure point). You may disagree with the compromises, sure." You should add "making more money" to the factors that went into this "well designed" approach. For example I don't see how not adding a MicroSD slot is nothing other than a method of forcing people into buying phones…

A microSD slot would have slower read/write access, would take up much more room per GB, and would compromise waterproofing.

Your point about money would be better made if you just complained about the cost of larger internal storage, except then it would be obvious - Apple is profit motivated.

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#444

Post by Kaveren »

Fnoord wrote: post #403
Kaveren wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having a smartphone is much easier to do when you have regular access to a decent laptop or desktop. Many people in developing countries do not. There is nothing "FOMO" about Internet access, it is extremely important. The world changed a lot from where we were 30 years ago. The advantages of having a computer you can bring with you (be that a laptop, tablet, or phone) are enormous. This is why I consider implyin…

Internet access is important, but not a panacea without any disadvantages. Furthermore, a smartphone assumes a device with GSM and data while an other device with on-demand WLAN (such as a cheap tablet) might suffice. TL;DR if you mean computers and internet access instead of smartphones, use the correct terminology.

Cellular networks are sometimes the only option for people in the developing world. I meant smartphones. Obviously, as I said, if you have a capable computer of any kind without Internet access, that is usually enough.

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#445

Post by ericlnu »

burtonator wrote: post #301
burtonator wrote: post #258

I'd like to think I'm one of the good guys here. I was one of the inventors of RSS and Atom and worked to push open content and social media. I started a social data search platform named Datastreamer ( http://www.datastreamer.io/ ) which is basically a petabyte-scale content indexing engine. We provide API feeds to search engines and social media analytics companies needing bulk data but don't want to have to build…

By other companies I mean companies like Cambridge Analytica. There are tons of other shady companies out there doing nefarious things with your data. We're going to need platforms that support group encryption and better security for apps.

Thank you very much for being awesome

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#446

Post by [deleted] »

bitcurious wrote: post #443
maxxxxx wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Each of your complaints is because of a well-designed compromise (app quality/safety; preventing abrupt phone shutdown; removing a common failure point). You may disagree with the compromises, sure." You should add "making more money" to the factors that went into this "well designed" approach. For example I don't see how not adding a MicroSD slot is nothing other than a method of forcing people into buying phones…

A microSD slot would have slower read/write access, would take up much more room per GB, and would compromise waterproofing. Your point about money would be better made if you just complained about the cost of larger internal storage, except then it would be obvious - Apple is profit motivated.

[deleted]

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#448

Post by kodablah »

IBM wrote: post #422
reacharavindh wrote: post #376

Disclaimer: I use Apple products, and trust them slightly more than anything Google/FaceBook/startups because they don't have a business front selling my data to advertisement companies or 3rd party miners(as much as I know of). But, I'm baffled by this PR as if they are the privacy messiah. Didn't they just sellout their Chinese users icloud data to the Chinese government? Yeah. "It's the law, and Apple has to obey…

I've posted this a number of times before but it's apparently not common knowledge (and for good reason Apple doesn't seem to talk about their situation in China often). Apple's position in China is completely consistent with the rest of the world. In filings to a court during the FBI legal fight, Apple addressed this topic head on. The reason it was brought up in the first place was because national security establi…

> That was a few years ago, but Tim Cook basically reaffirmed that a few weeks ago in this interview with Vice

At that time they were also storing iCloud data on their own servers, correct? To save myself and others from having to watch the Vice video, what did Tim Cook say that reaffirms no blanket Chinese government data access (honest, not sarcasm, I did not watch it)? Why are public statements about privacy always about the US or EU but never China? Surely the lack of consistency/transparency is clear here and causes mistrust.

Be open and honest to your users you claim to care about and there's no problem. Just simple statements like "We have privacy concerns with [insert country here]" or "We aren't allowed to talk about privacy concerns with [insert country here]" or "We do not give blanket data to [insert country here]" or "Although we follow the rules, we disagree with [insert country here]", etc would go a long way. Or continue to be secretive and hidden and anti-user.

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#449

Post by robocat »

maxxxxx wrote: post #340
robocat wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each of your complaints is because of a well-designed compromise (app quality/safety; preventing abrupt phone shutdown; removing a common failure point). You may disagree with the compromises, sure. PS: I own zero Apple devices (partly because of the reasons you have, not for the way you are misrepresenting those reasons).

" Each of your complaints is because of a well-designed compromise (app quality/safety; preventing abrupt phone shutdown; removing a common failure point). You may disagree with the compromises, sure." You should add "making more money" to the factors that went into this "well designed" approach. For example I don't see how not adding a MicroSD slot is nothing other than a method of forcing people into buying phones…

Supporting MicroSD is most definitely a compromise. 1. I've lost photos on an Android because I used one (I bought the most reliable brand of card I could, from my most trusted store, with quite a low capacity). 2. Also the UX is crap - I know the Android universe well, and managing the options, the files, and the apps is not something I would recommend to my mum. 3. Finally any hardware interface is a point of failure (e.g. recently I had to reseat a SIM in my friend's iPhone that couldn't connect to it).

I can see your argument re profit in the past, but it is becoming less valid as the minimum flash memory size is increasing. I have just bought an ZTE with 32GB because that is all I need (32GB is the minimum you can get in a new iPhone.)

All these arguments that Apple is trying to "nickel and dime" their users is just tiring. Sure, they charge a lot, and they love profits, but that doesn't mean they are shitting on their users (like say cellular network providers do!) Edit: ironically it is probably because they charge so much for the device and it is so profitable that they don't need to chase every cent they could e.g. they don't provide payday loans to buy their phones!

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#450

Post by IBM »

kodablah wrote: post #448
IBM wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've posted this a number of times before but it's apparently not common knowledge (and for good reason Apple doesn't seem to talk about their situation in China often). Apple's position in China is completely consistent with the rest of the world. In filings to a court during the FBI legal fight, Apple addressed this topic head on. The reason it was brought up in the first place was because national security establi…

> That was a few years ago, but Tim Cook basically reaffirmed that a few weeks ago in this interview with Vice At that time they were also storing iCloud data on their own servers, correct? To save myself and others from having to watch the Vice video, what did Tim Cook say that reaffirms no blanket Chinese government data access (honest, not sarcasm, I did not watch it)? Why are public statements about privacy alway…

Here's the exact time stamp so you can hear his answer yourself: https://youtu.be/VD1cP8SK3Q0?t=244

>Why are public statements about privacy always about the US or EU but never China?

As much as Apple/Cook may believe privacy is a human right, and have seemingly extracted some important concessions regarding their products, they aren't going to shoot themselves in the head so everyone can feel good about Apple publicly standing up to the CPC. That's a job for governments (the recent efforts by the Trump administration to reset the relationship with China is a good example).

Post reply on HN